Notices about DHT.
DHT is a Distributed Hash Table. I.e. HASH=VALUE
Bitcoin chain is a hash table, i.e. HASH=VALUE.
I have no reasons to doubt putting full block chain in DHT, leaving metadata (headers) on client. Need to find good implementation first.
Topic: DIANNA: the IANA Decentralized design concept - page 8. (Read 16101 times)
Kk but it would seem more attractive to Litecoin CPU miners as there is no merged mining for that yet so all or most of the Litecoin CPU miners would likely adopt it pretty fast?
Unless Litecoin is abandoned because it gives absolutely nothing new other than mining without needing a GPU
Kk but it would seem more attractive to Litecoin CPU miners as there is no merged mining for that yet so all or most of the Litecoin CPU miners would likely adopt it pretty fast?
I think your find it difficult to find miners as a lot of people have already adopted merged mining on Bitcoin with Namecoin. If you was to do merged mining with Litecoin CPU miners your not competing for new miners from anywhere and if you approach the Litecoin community and the major pools I'm sure there all be happy to merge your mining with theirs when your ready to start. This will lower the chance of a 51% attack.
You can merge-mine with more than 2 block chains. There's no reason people who are merge mining Bitcoin and Namecoin currently can't add an additional chain. This was already done with Devcoin as well. So as far as mining goes, there's no competition with Namecoin. 
Could you not have some hybrid approach where the dianna data is stored in a separate blockchain, but the blocks are "approved" in the bitcoin blockchain? So you wouldnt store anything in the bitcoin chain, other than a hash of the last known "approved" dianna block.
disclaimer: I have no idea what Im talking about
disclaimer: I have no idea what Im talking about
Didn't you just describe merge mining.
The difference being w/ merge mining Bitcoin is optional (one can still direct mine also).
Quote
0. Coins are destroyed Proof
1. NetworkFee descreasing for 50 to zero and will be zero in ~80000 block Proof and has no feedback with network activity like difficulty has.
2. Namecoin was designed for free domains and this is its future Proof
3. Developers have to do system intrusion from time to time to avoid collapse or spam hell Proof Proof
1. NetworkFee descreasing for 50 to zero and will be zero in ~80000 block Proof and has no feedback with network activity like difficulty has.
2. Namecoin was designed for free domains and this is its future Proof
3. Developers have to do system intrusion from time to time to avoid collapse or spam hell Proof Proof
0.) so what?
1.) "
2.) " Domains will never be free because of the price for name_new. Cheap domains were a design choice as Khal explained to you already (see links above).
3.) Your system will need some time to become as stable as namecoin is already today.
4.) Why not improve the current system? Pretty much seems possible.
5.) I repeat: everybody should pull on one string!
0. Its a crutch.
[
6.) Verify domain transactions and verify financial transactions is a different work. Domain transactions can be quitely higher in volume than financial ones. The work for their verification is not paid. name_update is free.
7.) name_new fee has no feedback with network activity.
8.) System is unbalanced and going to put terabytes of free data on clients HDDs.
9.) Well, if you plan to use this, go ahead.
10.) To fix all problems above namecoin chain needs to be destroyed.
]
0.) namecoins being destroyed is not a problem. there is easily enough room for domains. also the limit can be easily raised or removed altogether.
6.) I agree, maybe this should be changed
7.) Might be nice if done right, don't see why it could not be added.
Also at the moment it is not the developers setting the fee but the majority of miners and users installing the client.
8.) I don't see it coming. There has been a dust attack recently but it was fixed within days.
9.) I am using it heavily already.
10.) why do you think so?
11.) There is room for improvement with Namecoin but what has been achieved so far is remarkable.
12.) Ease of use and userbase size are much more important now than problems that will occur ten years from now and can easily be solved.
Why to overwhelm bitcoin block chain with possible terabytes of domain data? What did Satoshi said about this...
Could you not have some hybrid approach where the dianna data is stored in a separate blockchain, but the blocks are "approved" in the bitcoin blockchain? So you wouldnt store anything in the bitcoin chain, other than a hash of the last known "approved" dianna block.
disclaimer: I have no idea what Im talking about
hey... you invented merged mining
not exactly... but the idea is interesting
Why to overwhelm bitcoin block chain with possible terabytes of domain data? What did Satoshi said about this...
Could you not have some hybrid approach where the dianna data is stored in a separate blockchain, but the blocks are "approved" in the bitcoin blockchain? So you wouldnt store anything in the bitcoin chain, other than a hash of the last known "approved" dianna block.
disclaimer: I have no idea what Im talking about
hey... you invented merged mining
Anyway, like I said, I have no clue what Im talking about, just airing some random thoughts that other people perhaps can turn in to usable ones .
Thanks ) A brainstorm ideas are welcome .
Could you not have some hybrid approach where the dianna data is stored in a separate blockchain, but the blocks are "approved" in the bitcoin blockchain? So you wouldnt store anything in the bitcoin chain, other than a hash of the last known "approved" dianna block.
disclaimer: I have no idea what Im talking about
This will be a big sync problem. Bitcoin chain is quasi-stable and some its part can be rewritten at any time. What to do in this case...disclaimer: I have no idea what Im talking about
Not sure I understand the problem, but having an external chain (bitcoin in this case) "approve" the dianna chain actually makes it much more flexible. At any point you could decide to switch to another vetting system, say when bitcoin withers away and litecoin becomes the next big thing.
Anyway, like I said, I have no clue what Im talking about, just airing some random thoughts that other people perhaps can turn in to usable ones
. Could you not have some hybrid approach where the dianna data is stored in a separate blockchain, but the blocks are "approved" in the bitcoin blockchain? So you wouldnt store anything in the bitcoin chain, other than a hash of the last known "approved" dianna block.
disclaimer: I have no idea what Im talking about
This will be a big sync problem. Bitcoin chain is quasi-stable and some its part can be rewritten at any time. What to do in this case... disclaimer: I have no idea what Im talking about
Why to overwhelm bitcoin block chain with possible terabytes of domain data? What did Satoshi said about this...
Could you not have some hybrid approach where the dianna data is stored in a separate blockchain, but the blocks are "approved" in the bitcoin blockchain? So you wouldnt store anything in the bitcoin chain, other than a hash of the last known "approved" dianna block.
disclaimer: I have no idea what Im talking about
Quote
0. Coins are destroyed Proof
1. NetworkFee descreasing for 50 to zero and will be zero in ~80000 block Proof and has no feedback with network activity like difficulty has.
2. Namecoin was designed for free domains and this is its future Proof
3. Developers have to do system intrusion from time to time to avoid collapse or spam hell Proof Proof
1. NetworkFee descreasing for 50 to zero and will be zero in ~80000 block Proof and has no feedback with network activity like difficulty has.
2. Namecoin was designed for free domains and this is its future Proof
3. Developers have to do system intrusion from time to time to avoid collapse or spam hell Proof Proof
0.) so what?
1.) "
2.) " Domains will never be free because of the price for name_new. Cheap domains were a design choice as Khal explained to you already (see links above).
3.) Your system will need some time to become as stable as namecoin is already today.
4.) Why not improve the current system? Pretty much seems possible.
5.) I repeat: everybody should pull on one string!
Verify domain transactions and verify financial transactions is a different work. Domain transactions can be quitely higher in volume than financial ones. The work for their verification is not paid. name_update is free. name_new fee has no feedback with network activity. System is unbalanced and going to put terabytes of free data on clients HDDs.
Well, if you plan to use this, go ahead.
To fix all problems above namecoin chain needs to be destroyed.
Oh, pleeeeease...
I already said why i dont like namecoin implementation, scroll up, down and go through links. So big holes in design - this can not grow in something significant.
I already said why i dont like namecoin implementation, scroll up, down and go through links. So big holes in design - this can not grow in something significant.
I read through all that unstructured information but I find your arguments invalid.
Quote
0. Coins are destroyed Proof
1. NetworkFee descreasing for 50 to zero and will be zero in ~80000 block Proof and has no feedback with network activity like difficulty has.
2. Namecoin was designed for free domains and this is its future Proof
3. Developers have to do system intrusion from time to time to avoid collapse or spam hell Proof Proof
1. NetworkFee descreasing for 50 to zero and will be zero in ~80000 block Proof and has no feedback with network activity like difficulty has.
2. Namecoin was designed for free domains and this is its future Proof
3. Developers have to do system intrusion from time to time to avoid collapse or spam hell Proof Proof
0.) so what?
1.) "
2.) " Domains will never be free because of the price for name_new. Cheap domains were a design choice as Khal explained to you already (see links above).
3.) Your system will need some time to become as stable as namecoin is already today.
4.) Why not improve the current system? Pretty much seems possible.
5.) I repeat: everybody should pull on one string!
If Bitcoin developers will put block chain somehow in somewhere like DHT and leave only block headers on clients, the dianna can be futher integrated into bitoin block chain. There will be no need for separate block chain.
The primary problem for now is the every client stores all network data locally. This excludes dianna-like systems from bitcoin chain.
This is not different. Every node of your dianna system will need to store all the blockchain locally.The primary problem for now is the every client stores all network data locally. This excludes dianna-like systems from bitcoin chain.
Of course, users of your DNS system do not need the blockchain, they just need to talk to a server.
The same is true with Bitcoin and lightweight clients.
If Bitcoin developers will put block chain somehow in somewhere like DHT and leave only block headers on clients, the dianna can be futher integrated into bitoin block chain. There will be no need for separate block chain.
The primary problem for now is the every client stores all network data locally. This excludes dianna-like systems from bitcoin chain.
Maybe we need to go by bitcoin distributed storage way?
The primary problem for now is the every client stores all network data locally. This excludes dianna-like systems from bitcoin chain.
Maybe we need to go by bitcoin distributed storage way?
I agree that this fixes namecoin weaknesses.
- miners should get paid for the use of disk space induced by domain registration
- how much they get should be fixed by market
However, I believe that the most sensible implementation would be to write domain registrations directly into the Bitcoin blockchain, not to define a new blockchain & currency. Once you realize that the value of coins should not be tied to domain names, the logical conclusion is that we do not need a new blockchain. The existing infrastructure provides enough security.
hum, did I say something Gavin does not want to hear?
Satoshi does not own the blockchain. The existence of the blockchain, and the possibility to use it for secure storage of key-value pairs are just facts, and developers cannot do anything about it. Some miners could refuse non standard transactions, but others will be happy to take them.
The scalability of the Bitcoin block chain is a true question, and I think developers should focus on it; it is more important and more urgent than multisig contracts.
However, repeating over and over again "that spamming the blockchain is evil" will not fix things.
I agree that this fixes namecoin weaknesses.
- miners should get paid for the use of disk space induced by domain registration
- how much they get should be fixed by market
However, I believe that the most sensible implementation would be to write domain registrations directly into the Bitcoin blockchain, not to define a new blockchain & currency. Once you realize that the value of coins should not be tied to domain names, the logical conclusion is that we do not need a new blockchain. The existing infrastructure provides enough security.
hum, did I say something Gavin does not want to hear?
Actually, DIANNA operates like NameCoin, but:
- registration fee is returned to miners (not destroyed) and caused additional proportional difficulty overhead to be not free
- registration fee defined by free market agreements, not by system. System can only suggest its value at first stages like bitcoin tx fee
- coins are not used as a domain name carrier
- registration fee is returned to miners (not destroyed) and caused additional proportional difficulty overhead to be not free
- registration fee defined by free market agreements, not by system. System can only suggest its value at first stages like bitcoin tx fee
- coins are not used as a domain name carrier
I agree that this fixes namecoin weaknesses.
- miners should get paid for the use of disk space induced by domain registration
- how much they get should be fixed by market
However, I believe that the most sensible implementation would be to write domain registrations directly into the Bitcoin blockchain, not to define a new blockchain & currency. Once you realize that the value of coins should not be tied to domain names, the logical conclusion is that we do not need a new blockchain. The existing infrastructure provides enough security.
hum, did I say something Gavin does not want to hear?
I think your find it difficult to find miners as a lot of people have already adopted merged mining on Bitcoin with Namecoin. If you was to do merged mining with Litecoin CPU miners your not competing for new miners from anywhere and if you approach the Litecoin community and the major pools I'm sure there all be happy to merge your mining with theirs when your ready to start. This will lower the chance of a 51% attack.
Jump to: